My Nokton F1.1 Experience

[Luke_Miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With the interest in the 7artisans 50mm f1.1 lens I thought I'd comment on my Nokton 50mm F1.1 experience.  I've always lusted after the Noctilux, but was unsure if the weight, size, and razor thin Noctilux DOF was something I would use often enough to justify the purchase price.  To find out I bought a used Nokton F1.1 from Cameraquest.  From various reviews and lens tests I found it was similar in wide-open sharpness to the Noctilux f1, but lacked its smooth out of focus rendering.  It also was reported to suffer from focus shift.

 

When I received the lens I checked for focus shift using a tripod and LV to focus on the closest edge of a 3D subject about 4 feet away.  Without refocusing I shot a series in half stop increments from f1.1 to f5.6.  In that series the initial focus point remained in focus, so I was satisfied the lens was usable.  Rangefinder focused f1.1 shots with my MM, M-240 and M-246 showed that calibration was correct.

 

Now if my lens, in fact, did not have focus shift it would apparently be a rare example.  So I conducted a test using the LensAlign tool used for calibrating my autofocus lenses.  Once I completed the alignment process between the camera and LensAlign I did a second series of exposures at half stop increments after LV focusing at f1.1.  The results:

 

At f1.1 the DOF is centered at the focus point

At f1.4 the DOF is deeper and its center is slightly behind, but includes the focus point

At f1.8 the DOF is deeper still and its center is now far enough behind as to slightly affect the sharpness of the focus point

From f2.0 to f5 the DOF continues to increase but shifts far enough to the rear that the focus point is too soft to be usable

At f5.6 the DOF has expanded to include the focus point so it is once again sharp

 

So if I choose to use the Nokton f1.1 wide-open or at f1.4 (and possibly at f1.8) I am pleased with its performance at the focus point.  At f5.6 the focus point is again sharp and it can be used as a general purpose (albeit heavy) 50.  Since the lens is actually sharp at all the apertures I tested (f1.1 to f5.6) it is fully usable if focused with LV or the EVF.

 

So the 50mm Nokton f1.1 will serve its purpose of letting me decide it f1.1 is an aperture I will use regularly.  And if so, a Noctilux may be in my future.  If not, I've saved a bunch of money.

[honcho]

...... if so, a Noctilux may be in my future.  If not, I've saved a bunch of money.

The only way you will ever really know is to convince yourself the lack of swirly, gloopy and otherwise bland behaviour of the Nokton's oof bits are worth spending your grandkid's inheritance on a noctilux. Only then will you fall into line with one of two polarised opinions on the noctilux:

 

1. You'll like it so much that you won't be able to resist spending the rest of your photographic life crowing about how wonderfully unique it is. You may even back up the claim with some worthwhile full-bore noctilux images (most are just full bore).

2. You will dislike it for being a bloated one-trick piglet, sell it and never look back.

 

I'm with #2. I doubt I am alone.

[Luke_Miller]

2. You will dislike it for being a bloated one-trick piglet, sell it and never look back.

 

This is what I hope to avoid - buying a Noctilux and then not liking it enough to actually use it regularly.

[Luke_Miller]

A couple of not-worthwhile full-bore shots @ f1.1 -  Rangefinder focused using a B&W 8x ND Filter.  The first close and the second at distance.  

 

[honcho]

This is what I hope to avoid - buying a Noctilux and then not liking it enough to actually use it regularly.

I think the regular trickle of used noctilux lenses looking for 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc owners says something. I bought mine new, a very late version f1, because I thought I would use it frequently enough to justify the outlay. The reality was I found the handling of it too irritating and opposed to my personal perception of Leica M photography to be bothered with it most of the time. I rarely used it and offloaded it on here for 3.5x what I paid for it, so my only regret is that I did not buy half a dozen of them at the time.

 

Good luck if you eventually decide to buy one. If you later find you have made a mistake, you should recover your outlay at least.

[NB23]

Noctilux or die.

 

No fake-o-rama for me.

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I first passed up buying a Noctilux in 1969 - and I've kept passing ever since.

[jdlaing]

+1

[NB23]

I first passed up buying a Noctilux in 1969 - and I've kept passing ever since.

Ouch, this has to hurt.

 

$20-30K for a 1.2 version proves that the wise decision wasn't the one you took Back then, and ever since

[ropo54]

I suppose I'd disagree with some of you.

I have the 0.95 and think it is pretty special. 

But, this is just hobby for me and I just assume I'll be able to sell it for what I paid, or more, one day, should I be so inclined.

I also have the R 80 1.4 and love it wide open. Certainly, a much better value for the cost with a 'similar' kind of shallow depth of field rendering.

 

(This photo taken with the 0.95).

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ECohen]

I don't own the Noctilux ....yet.....but I'm thinking about it. With 40 years in professional photography (now retired) ....... .95 seems like fun, especially since most of my photography was studio at f/64.

Two schools of though..... you either love  the Noctilux or you hate it.  Those that love it ....enjoy using the lens  and it makes pictures that please them....boring or not.

So granted its not the most useful all around lens. Maybe 1.4 make the more "logical" and wiser choice? But does shooting with Leica really need to make sense?

Here's  the thing I don't understand.
To all you folks that  have tried it and sold it....... all of you clam to have made money on the purchase ....right ?

 

I love my  Summicron, a very sensible choice......If I get a nice used Noctilux, use it occasionally ....maybe I love it and use it more than occasionally. When the Grandkids sell my cameras,everybody wins.

So where is the down side?

[ropo54]

 

I don't own the Noctilux ....yet.....but I'm thinking about it. With 40 years in professional photography (now retired) ....... .95 seems like fun, especially since most of my photography was studio at f/64.

 

Two schools of though..... you either love  the Noctilux or you hate it.  Those that love it ....enjoy using the lens  and it makes pictures that please them....boring or not.

 

So granted its not the most useful all around lens. Maybe 1.4 make the more "logical" and wiser choice? But does shooting with Leica really need to make sense?

 

 

 

The Noctilux works quite nicely at 1.4 too.

But, really, if you don't care to invest in the noctilux, the R 80 1.4 is very special and for substantially less money. 

Rob

 

(R80 1.4)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[weinlamm]

If you have the money: go and take the 0.95. There's nothing better. 

 

If not - and you really have a VC-version which has a correct focus - keep it, be happy - and be gentle to him/her. 

 

Some years ago I bought a VC, which didn't work exactly. Sent it to Ringfoto/Voigtländer here in Germany. It went first to VC, then back to me. Then again to VC - and they shipped it to Japan (it's not possible to adjust it in Germany). It came back from Japan "adjusted"... But didn't focus corretly, still... 

After a longer discussion with one of the superiors at VC I got an new one. And this was perfect! 

 

But... one day I found a 0.95 for a real good price - and since that day I didn't use the VC. Sold it (my perfect VC) round about 3 or 4 years ago. 

 

But now... since the discussion about the 7A began I am still looking for a cheap alternative for my Nocti (for days I do not pay so much attention on my gear...). My experience is that my last 5 copies all had a uncorrect focus (2 new; 3 used - and only one had have a nearly correct focus...  ). Still hadn't found a copy which is ok. But... I'm only buying or testing lenses where I can give it back (so only one was from an ebay-dealer).

 

So - if you have one which is focussion correct: be gentle and happy with it. 

 

 

[spydrxx]

Went the Nocti route years ago...like others didn't use it enough to warrant the cost, sold it and haven't looked back.

[Ecar]

In addition to bloated size/weight, a propensity for generating boring images, the Noctilux is not sharp wide open and also suffers from a particularly nasty form of CA. That's why it sees little use. And it costs an arm and a leg. Must be a bad lens to have...

[Keith_W]

Wow, thanks for all the feedback guys. I am new to the M-system, prior to this I have shot with Canon for years, and then Sony. In the Canon system, as far as 50mm lenses are concerned, there is a clear progression: the 50mm f/1.2L is better than the 50/1.4, which in turn is better than the 50/1.8. It was very simple - the faster lens gave you the opportunity to use larger apertures, whilst equalling or exceeding the slower lens in sharpness when stopped down. 

 

So when I bought into the M system, I was going to buy a Noctilux as my first 50mm lens. I even managed to find a secondhand one (f/1, not f/0.95) which was going for not too much money. But everyone I spoke to counselled against it, and I was confused. The Noctilux is lighter than the Canon 50/1.2L, so I did not understand why they were criticizing it for being heavy. Also, surely the Noctilux would equal or better the performance of the Summilux when stopped down to f/1.4?

 

Well, the first time I mounted a Noctilux on my camera, I understood the criticism. The Nocti made it front heavy. Also, I simply could not nail focus with this thing, even at f/1.4 (remember I am new to rangefinders!). And I found review after review on the web showing that the Summilux is superior at f/1.4 than the Noctilux. 

 

I still have an irrational lust for fast lenses, so maybe there is a Noctilux in my future. Maybe I just need to get it out of my system! 

[ECohen]

In addition to bloated size/weight, a propensity for generating boring images, the Noctilux is not sharp wide open and also suffers from a particularly nasty form of CA. That's why it sees little use. And it costs an arm and a leg. Must be a bad lens to have...

 

How does a lens make boring images ?

You really can't pin that on a lens.

 

Or did I misunderstand the tongue in cheek ?

[pico]

I don't own the Noctilux ....yet.....but I'm thinking about it. [...]

Two schools of though..... you either love  the Noctilux or you hate it.  [...]

 

You have no Nokton f1.1  experience.

How can you know if you love it or not if you have not used it?

 

A polar opinion is necessarily suspect, and null if the critic has no experience.

So, null it is.

[ECohen]

You have no Nokton f1.1  experience.

How can you know if you love it or not if you have not used it?

 

A polar opinion is necessarily suspect, and null if the critic has no experience.

So, null it is.

 

You are correct. My opinion is only learned from the consensus of what I have read on this this form......and there are a lot of opinions.

 

Still how does a lens make a boring photo....any lens?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ropo54]

Wow, thanks for all the feedback guys. I am new to the M-system, prior to this I have shot with Canon for years, and then Sony. In the Canon system, as far as 50mm lenses are concerned, there is a clear progression: the 50mm f/1.2L is better than the 50/1.4, which in turn is better than the 50/1.8. It was very simple - the faster lens gave you the opportunity to use larger apertures, whilst equalling or exceeding the slower lens in sharpness when stopped down. 

 

So when I bought into the M system, I was going to buy a Noctilux as my first 50mm lens. I even managed to find a secondhand one (f/1, not f/0.95) which was going for not too much money. But everyone I spoke to counselled against it, and I was confused. The Noctilux is lighter than the Canon 50/1.2L, so I did not understand why they were criticizing it for being heavy. Also, surely the Noctilux would equal or better the performance of the Summilux when stopped down to f/1.4?

 

Well, the first time I mounted a Noctilux on my camera, I understood the criticism. The Nocti made it front heavy. Also, I simply could not nail focus with this thing, even at f/1.4 (remember I am new to rangefinders!). And I found review after review on the web showing that the Summilux is superior at f/1.4 than the Noctilux. 

 

I still have an irrational lust for fast lenses, so maybe there is a Noctilux in my future. Maybe I just need to get it out of my system! 

 

I have used it on the SL and it is fairly easy to achieve accurate focus. Cannot comment on use on the M.

Heavy/bulky somewhat, but very manageable!